On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > Obviously there is some (small) complexity cost to automating it. I > didn't specify what a fair number of methods would be (my example showed > four, but that was just an illustration, not real code). In practice I > wouldn't even consider this for three methods. Six or eight seems like a > reasonable cut-of point for me, but it depends on the specifics of the > code and who I was writing it for. > > (Note that this makes me much more conservative than the usual advice > given by system admins, when you need to do the same thing for the third > time, write a script to automate it.)
The boundary definitely varies. I've often gone to a dozen almost-identical blocks of code before turning them into a loop (when the "almost" makes it a lot harder to collapse them usefully), and sometimes, just two copies is enough to refactor. But six to eight does seem like a reasonable point for tiny (maybe stub) functions. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
